TN Real Estate Investors’ Home Held Domestic Partnership Property
Tennessee law case summary on domestic partnership in family law from the Court of Appeals.
Jeff Finch v. Tina Raymer – Tennessee domestic partnership property
Jeff Finch, a carpenter and boilermaker, brought this action against Tina Raymer, his former girlfriend and business partner, and her parents. They had lived together for about six years but never married. During this time, they formed a partnership for the purpose of buying and selling real estate. After they separated, they split the proceeds of the sales of those properties, but were unable to agree as to the ownership of the house where they lived. The trial court held that the property was a partnership asset and awarded each party a one-half interest as tenants in common. The trial court also concluded that the defendant had fraudulently conveyed partnership property to her father.
The house in question was on land purchased during the relationship. It was titled in Ms. Raymer’s name alone. Prior to purchasing that property, the parties had purchased another house, also titled in her name alone, and had renovated it and shared the profits. Mr. Finch, along with Ms. Rayer’s father, did the construction work themselves. They later used the equity in this property to finance the purchase of other properties for renovation projects. For those projects, Ms. Raymer handled the business dealings and painting and wallpapering, and Mr. Finch did the “heavy” work. The proceeds from these projects went into the parties’ joint bank account.
Mrs. Finch appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, and argued that the trial court erred in finding the house and other assets to be partnership property. She argued that the evidence was consistent with the property being a personal residence rather than part of the business partnership.
The Court of Appeals first noted that property is presumed to be partnership property if it is purchased with partnership assets. The fact that it is titled in one party’s name is not dispositive. The Court analyzed the evidence, in which various other properties were “flipped,” and agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that partnership assets had been used to purchase the property. The Court took special note of the fact that other properties, which were indisputably business investments, had been held in one name only. The Court found that the parties had acted consistently with the property being jointly owned throughout the time they held it.
The defendants also argued that the partnership agreement was unenforceable under the statute of frauds because it was not in writing. However, the Court of Appeals cited earlier Tennessee cases which made clear that the statute of frauds could not be used to defeat an otherwise valid partnership interest.
The trial court has also awarded the plaintiff his attorney’s fees, but the Court of Appeals held that this award was not supported under Tennessee law. Therefore, it affirmed the judgment of the trial court, but vacated the award of attorney’s fees.
No. W2012-00974-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 6, 2013).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
The Miles Mason Family Law Group handles Tennessee divorce, child support, alimony, child custody, and parent relocation. Download our free e-Book, Your First Steps: 7 Steps Planning Your Tennessee Divorce. A Memphis divorce lawyer from the Miles Mason Family Law Group can help. To schedule your confidential consultation, call us today at (901) 683-1850.
